19 July 2009 8:52 AM

The Defence Secretary and the International Marxist Group

In a number of newspaper stories last week, it was suggested that the latest Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, had been - at the age of 30 - a 'candidate member' of a body called the 'International Marxist Group'. The IMG, originally associated with the prominent student revolutionary Tariq Ali, was a Trotskyist group active in the 1970s and 1980s, whose members at one stage adopted the slogan "Victory to the IRA".

Why does this matter?

It is my belief that many prominent Labour MPs were directly or indirectly connected with this or similar revolutionary groups in the 1960s and 1970s, and this is a significant current in New Labour. Those involved tend to prefer to keep quiet about it. In my view this is because it still matters, and still gives an important clue about the general opinions they hold, despite the bland image of 'new Labour' as a 'right-wing' tendency, because it no longer wishes to nationalise the railways.

The full extent of this will probably never be known. These groups were very secretive, and relevant MI5 files have almost certainly been destroyed; it is very hard to establish the facts without first-hand information. Recently the former Home Office minister Tony McNulty revealed that he had been a revolutionary, mainly in the hope of currying favour with a largely left-wing audience. I happened to find out about this, because I was at the same gathering, but I do not think Mr McNulty can have expected - or intended - this to happen.

It has been claimed by prominent left-wingers that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, once belonged to the IMG, though sources in the Treasury have denied this to me. Two senior ministers in the original Blair Cabinet were widely believed to have been revolutionaries. John Reid was without doubt an adult member of the Communist Party. Peter Mandelson was a Young Communist.

When I sought more information about Mr Ainsworth's alleged links with the IMG, I talked to a 'spokesperson' who, after an unsatisfactory phone conversation, sent me a written statement. This is what it said: "Bob Ainsworth has never been a member of the International MarxistGroup. In the early 80s he attended a couple of their meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say."

On Friday afternoon, shortly before 4.00 pm, I e-mailed this spokesperson (and alerted the spokesperson by text message that the e-mail had been sent). I have had no response of any kind since then.

This is what my e-mail contained:

"I would like to ask the following supplementary questions:

1. It was never alleged that Mr Ainsworth was a member of the International Marxist Group (IMG). The allegation made in some newspapers and in the Wikipedia entry was that he was a 'candidate member', that is to say someone who was being considered for membership. Does he confirm or deny that this was the case?

2. It was alleged that he was in this position during two years, 1982 and 1983. This suggests that his connection with the IMG extended to more than "a couple of meetings". How many meetings did he in fact attend? "A couple" is generally taken to mean "two". Does it mean two in this case, or more? If so, roughly how many and how often?

3. Did he participate actively in those meetings, engaging in debate at them?

4.Did he subscribe to any of the publications of the IMG?

5. Did he sell IMG publications to colleagues or in public places, or distribute IMG material of any kind?

6. If he already took the view that he did not agree with anything the IMG said, as implied by the use of the expression "confirmed his view", why did he then attend any of their meetings?

7. Given that much of what the IMG 'said' was the standard expression of left-wing opinions on foreign and domestic policy, cultural and educational questions, almost all of it shared at the time and since by many members of the Labour Party and the Trade Union movement, can he please be more specific about the things with which he disagreed? Would Mr Ainsworth describe himself as having been a 'right-wing' member of the Labour Party at this time?

8. Was there no part of the IMG's position with which he then agreed?

9. Has he complained about the newspaper stories on his links with the IMG, in any way?

10. Will he seek to alter the entry in Wikipedia which says: "During 1982 and 1983, he was a candidate member of the International Marxist Group, but he was never a full member of that organisation." What would he substitute for these words?

11. Can he supply the name of the colleague who introduced him to the IMG?"

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

snooping legislation they keep bringing in I think they are still there in Nu Labour, their views intact and doing our country immense damage. The only thing they are doing is hiding their true values that they know ordinary people dislike so much. If Labour Party MP’s did express their real, hidden and suppressed communist and Trotskyite views and opinions they would not last long.

Posted by: moorlandhunter | 21 July 2009 at 09:20 AM
"Reid would have been 31 at the time [the invasion of Czechslovakia]."
(Fred Kite)
John Reid was 21 in 1968, not 31
Posted by: Cardinal del Monte | 20 July 2009 at 11:46 PM
An interesting article about the penetration of the 1970s Labour movement by pro-Soviet trade unionists recently appeared in The Spectator.
Written by Douglas Eden and titled “We came close to losing our democracy in 1979”, it neatly summarises what he describes as “the Left’s project, led from the trade unions, to transfigure parliamentary democracy into a form of soviet state.”
Thought provoking reading.

Posted by: Lance Grundy | 20 July 2009 at 10:18 PM
I happened to notice the newspaper version of this article in the pub last night. Why was much more made of querying Ainsworths support for the IRA and using a BNP meeting analogy in the newspaper than in the online version?
Without wishing to get into a debate about support for the IRA, what the British Army got up to in Northern Ireland seems to be much more disgraceful for a standing army of a "democratic" country.
While I don't necessarily agree with "Victory to the IRA" perhaps I could stomach "Victory to Bernadette Devlin". She was a self-described Socialist and an MP who, on being told by the Home Secretary Reginald Maudling in 1972, that "the British Army had fired only in self-defence" promptly punched him in the face!
Posted by: DW | 20 July 2009 at 09:28 PM
Some of Mr Mulholland's missives have been quite disgraceful, particularly his praise for the IRA.
Posted by: Wesley Crosland | 20 July 2009 at 09:02 PM
I enjoyed the line about "new Labour" being seen as right-wing "because it no longer wishes to nationalize the railways". But the truth is that much of the Labour party, new or otherwise, does want to nationalize the railways, and openly rejoiced when the East Coast mainline was recently brought back under public ownership.
Posted by: Tom X | 20 July 2009 at 06:10 PM
Sorry to disappoint Mr.Hitchens, but the event he is talking about when I made my 'confession' about my 'revolutionary' past was organised by the Index on Censorship and I agreed with them beforehand that the entire speech would be not only taped, but subsequently published in their Journal. So the notion that I did not intend or expect this disclosure to become public knowledge and it only did so because of his attendance at the same event is simply wrong and wholly inaccurate.
Posted by: Tony McN | 20 July 2009 at 06:09 PM
mikebarnes 20 July at 08.42am
"So norfolk al falls into that so simple trap that the BNP..."
Well, perhaps the reason I keep 'falling into your simple traps' is because you make so little effort to move beyond the language of what was the National Front and its Hitler-admiring supporters.
Posted by: Norfolk Al | 20 July 2009 at 05:04 PM
First of all, a welcome back to Kevin Boatang. Is this just a passing visit or more permanent?
Nice to see some positive action being taken by yourself and Mr Demetriou...
Norfolk Al and Mike Barnes
I must admit, I think Norfolk Al made a good point: change the names around and there's not much difference, although I also think Mr Barnes is right when he points out that the BNP/nazi comparison is done all too often. It does become tiresome reading about the BNP boogeyman when (to my mind) the far greater authoritarian menace is already in power (and they're just as racist, except in a different way).
I must admit, I watched Nick Griffin on the Andrew Marr show the other week and found myself agreeing with what he said, and he sounded fairly reasonable (unless he came out with a horrible comment that I didn't hear while I was concentrating on my bran flakes). I thought he fared well against the usual accusations of racism etc, although to be fair, I was pleased to see Andrew Marr at least let him have his say without trying to show off anti-racist credentials, which is what most other presenters would have done.
While I'm here and on the subject of parties like the BNP, UKIP, Boatang and Demetriou and English Democrats etc (I'm sure some people are going to be unhappy that I've lumped them all together in the same boat) does anyone know anything about the English Democrats?
Are they a new up-and-coming party or are they to be dismissed like UKIP, regarded as 'nazi' like the BNP or are they the Real Deal?
I only ask because no-one ever seems to mention them and unlike UKIP and the BNP they tend not to be too vocal on here. Maybe I should join them just so I can claim to follow a political cause...
Any info would be most welcome....
Regards
Posted by: Mark | 20 July 2009 at 04:59 PM
Oi! put the link up!
Well, if you wonder to Total Politics dot come and look on their blog, there is an article about voting for the best political blogs.
Or you can slide on over to Boatang Demetriou dot com and click the link there whilst experiencing the genius' at work.
Posted by: Kevin Boatang | 20 July 2009 at 04:31 PM
On the other hand, a vote for Boatang and Demetriou at [edited by admin: links not allowed] Total Politics will show the desire for a truly free country.
Throw off the shackles of Left and Right and follow the path of B&D. I understand Peter has already given us his full support.
Posted by: Kevin Boatang | 20 July 2009 at 03:55 PM
As for 'pro-IRA' ranting, I have already disowned those comments. If Ainsworth was a Trotskyist at some point, so be it. I shall not hold it against him. People grow older and become more moderate, as I suspect Bob has. Mr Hitchens was himself once a Trot, I do not hold it against him either. We must remember that Trotsky himself was an enemy of the despot Stalin and had he succeeded Lenin, Russia may have been a much better place to live.
I myself am not a communist. I believe in socialist principles and feel, unlike Mr Hitchens, that New Labour is not a socialist party in the old Labour sense of 'common ownership'. However, it is a rather nasty authoritarian party with communist tendencies. They want to nationalize the British conscience and tell us what we ought to think and what we can and cannot say. They limit our right to protest and brutally suppress those who do and imprison people for unreasonable lengths of time without reasons being given.
Posted by: Kyle Mulholland | 20 July 2009 at 03:43 PM
"Mike" asks ( 10.58 pm 19th July) :"Er, isn't it a well-known fact that you were a Trotskyite in your youth, Peter?".
In case nobody else makes this point quickly, I shall respond. Well yes "Mike", it is "well-known". And that is precisely the point of difference between me and the politicians who try to keep their political pasts a secret.
It is "well-known" because I have for many years made sure that it is "well-known". I have many times spoken about it. I readily answer questions about it, I have not been coy about details, dates or the extent of my involvement. On the contrary, I ensure that it is on the public record by (for instance) mentioning in my "Who's Who" entry that I worked for the newspaper 'Socialist Worker', then the weekly publication of the International Socialists. The involvement of many rather senior Labour figures in Marxist revolutionary organisations, by contrast, has generally been revealed against their wishes or without their co-operation (I except Mr McNulty, but I still think he thought he was among friends). Anthony Blair even tried to pretend that he had never been a supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and ignorant journalists have accepted the absurd claim that the Labour Co-ordinating Committee (of which Mr Blair was also a supporter) was a 'moderate' formation. Ha ha.
Nor have I ever heard any of them express regrets about it, or examine ( as I have often done) the effects that these past opinions have on their views today.
It is perfectly clear that, whatever I am, I am not a revolutionary Marxist, though some Tories have attempted to suggest this is so, because I attack their hero David Cameron. Truth is, Mr Cameron's positions, especially on cultural, social and sexual matters, are much closer to those of the 1970s International Socialists than are mine. But Mr Cameron, who I suspect has no strong convictions of any kind, has merely adopted the spirit of the age provided for him by broadcasters and teachers, and does not even know where his ideas come from.
My belief is that Labour's sixties revolutionaries remain, by temperament and conviction, left-wing revolutionary radicals, who have realised that the parliamentary road is actually more use to their cause than they believed back in the 1960s or 1970s.
They have many allies. Large numbers of teachers hold similar views, especially secondary and college teachers, who moved from campus to classroom in the early 1970s without ever stepping into the outside world. The trades union movement is even more crammed with such people, as is the legal profession and the civil service. There are increasing numbers of them in the police. Though my guess is that they are most heavily concentrated in the BBC and in the liberal newspapers, and hardest to find in the Armed Forces.
Oh, and, though the IMG merely shouted 'Victory to the IRA' in the 1960s, it was the Blair government that actually gave 'Victory to the IRA' in the Belfast capitulation of March 1998. Pure coincidence, of course.

Posted by: Peter Hitchens | 20 July 2009 at 11:05 AM
"Er, isn't it a well-known fact that you were a Trotskyite in your youth, Peter?" poses "Mike".
Yes, it is indeed a well-known fact, and Mr Hitchens' intellectual journey from the views of his youth to his present position is clearly and fascinatingly explored in "The Broken Compass".
The point is, some current politicians are far less candid about their past and the reasons for their "transformation". One might have more respect for them if they showed similar honesty.
Posted by: Tony Dodd | 20 July 2009 at 08:42 AM
So norfolk al falls into that so simple trap that the BNP are the reincarnation of Hitler and his ways.
So follow that to its illogical conclusions Gas Chambers all over the land. They never say that of course except on the lunatic fringe, because they know its rubbish.
Al; from Norfolk is like all the others name calling. No intelligent debate. Well people are seeing through that silly antic and realising that some Party must address the real life situations that do affect most of Britain including Norfolk.
Posted by: mikebarnes | 20 July 2009 at 08:42 AM
Kyle Mulholland says, somewhat sarcastically: "OH NO! Members of the Labour Party MAY HAVE BEEN SOCIALISTS! Stop the presses!"
Mr Mulholland, it's one thing to be a "socialist", but quite another to have been a member of, or tried to join, Communist/Marxist or Trotsky groups.
Further, it's one thing to have held such views when young, but then publicly disowned them, but quite another to pretend you were never aligned in this way, and to try and suppress knowledge of this.
In my view, if any members of government, or MPs for that matter, have ever been "commies" of any description, we have a right to know. Communism was our enemy for decades, you know.
Would you be so sarcastic, if it was a Conservative shadow cabinet member in the spotlight, under suspicion of once been in the BNP, or some Fascist group?

Therefore he was not averse—and clearly took some pleasure in—trying to cause Darling some political embarrassment when he recounted his first meeting with Darling.

“When I first met him 35 years ago,” Galloway states, “Darling was pressing Trotskyite tracts on bewildered railwaymen at Waverley Station in Edinburgh. He was a supporter of the International Marxist Group, whose publication was entitled the Black Dwarf.

“Later, in preparation for his current role he became the treasurer of what was always termed the rebel Lothian Regional Council.”

Galloway continues, “Red Ally and his friends around the Black Dwarf were for a time a colourful part of the Scottish left. The late Ron Brown, Red Ronnie as he was known, was Alistair’s bosom buddy. He was thrown out of Parliament for placing a placard saying hands off Lothian Region on Mrs Thatcher’s despatch box while she was addressing the House. And Darling loved it at the time.”

[Edited by admin. Link removed.]

But Fabianism is just another Commie group and we have 300 of them in Westminster at least!

Thanks for letting me know, I had been wondering about the English Democrats. What a shame, I sort of liked the sound of them, alas! Also, I did take a look at your website (further comments on the 'Oh no, the drug liberalisers...' thread). I enjoyed reading a couple of your articles (only had time to read a couple).

Mr Demetriang: pedantry aside for a moment, I'm afraid that anyone roaming around in here boasting of the status of "genius" (tongue in cheek, who knows?) is simply *asking* to be shot down in flames at any opportunity. It's just not very.......British, you know?

I'm wary of getting drawn in to these 'micro-arguments', but then I find you have to add "if you wish to pick me, or Mr B, up on something, please try and direct the conversation towards the individual - we are not Siamese twins."

I think you will find I addressed my last post to Mr Boatriou. However, if he is bold enough to include you in his 'genius brackets', then I'm afraid you'll have to take the flak too.

If you have to bail out over my house, I will at least offer you a cup of tea.

If you want to find out lots about the English Democrats, I suggest you check out our site - we had a few well documented encounters with them during the course of the European Elections. I'm sure you'll find what we (and Mr Rob) experienced of them rather, er, enlightening.

In a nutshell - do not waste your time on them. To describe that party as shabby, two bit and two bob would be somewhat of a remarkable lavishing of praise.

I see Mr Whitfield embraces the life of the eternal pedant, as usual. He and Mr Preston ought to share digs and write a book about 'how to correct people in public', you'd make enough to retire on and buy all the Derek and Clive recordings you could possibly want.

Mr Boatang may have made a very slight error on the plural of 'genius', but I really must point out (not for the first time in my alter ego's career) that when I write something and when Mr B. writes something, we are not in the same room, sat on the same chair, typing away at the same keyboard all at the same time.

We live hundreds of miles apart, and literally never brief each other on what the other intends to write.

So if you wish to pick me, or Mr B, up on something, please try and direct the conversation towards the individual - we are not Siamese twins.

Ah, our dear, dear, dear Mr Tony McNulty. I wish you well in your discussions with Mr Hitchens. Handy hint - whatever you say, however you defend yourself, you will come off a) looking bad and b) the loser of the debate.

This may not be due to you putting up a poor account of yourself, it's just the way things work here.

As one contributor puts it; debating with Mr H. is like playing 'Chase the Ace'. It's a rigged game where there is always one winner (the house) and one loser (the player).

Handy tip for all the posters here...whatever you do, don't mention 'expenses'. Shhhhhhh...

''She was a self-described Socialist and an MP who, on being told by the Home Secretary Reginald Maudling in 1972, that "the British Army had fired only in self-defence" promptly punched him in the face!''

she was a fanatic plain and simple,one of those whose fanaticism took ulster to the brink of civil war.she and her Peoples Democracy Trotskyite cohorts had a policy of deliberately causing civil disturbances to bring down the northern Irish state,that included marching through loyalist areas with a view to inflaming sectarian tensions.look at the results of the actions of these infantile sixth form revolutionaries.she was also a founding member of the INLA/IRSP,an organisation every bit as ruthless and bloodthirsty as the IRA.she was merely another of those sixties radical narcissists playing at being Che.the only problem was that in Northern Ireland,unlike many other places,such revolutionary role-playing had fatal results.

"We must remember that Trotsky himself was an enemy of the despot Stalin and had he succeeded Lenin, Russia may have been a much better place to live.".

My, my, without wishing to appear rude I'd like to ask if have received any education at all as you don't seem to know much about anything. Firstly you appear to be unaware of the atrocities committed by the IRA then a Janet and John primer puts you right, now it seems Trotsky was a real nice guy.

The main differences between Trotsky and Stalin were ideological and personal. Trotsky was far more of an idealist than Stalin which leads me to believe things under his rule would have been much worse as idealists can always justify what they do, "It's for the cause". Stalin was paranoid about Trotsky and anybody else he saw as a threat which is why Trotsky had to flee and was later assassinated by Stalin's agent.

A warm welcome to Tony McNulty to this weblog. I would only point out that 'Index on Censorhip' gatherings, though undoubtedly interesting, are not generally closely covered by the media, that my presence there was both fortunate and fortuitous, and that the Mail on Sunday has a slightly larger readership than the excellent Journal produced by Index on Censorship.

I'd also add that (if my memory serves) his revelation emerged in questions and answers rather than in his actual speech. Since Mr McNulty's now posting here, and plainly happy to talk about the subject, perhaps he could go into a bit more detail about his Trotskyist period.

It really does amaze me that people in government who now embrace the love of money and wealth, the love of power over ordinary were once part of communist or Trotskyite groups, which at the time were intent on over throwing our country or doing damage to it. It’s appalling that Mandelson, ex Communist, kicked out of government twice, once for a dodgy mortgage, was then given a £230,000 goodbye by the EU for voluntarily leaving his EU post to become an unelected government minister in the House of Lords. It should be no surprise really; it’s a great communist method of bringing people back into power without being elected!
To think the same IRA supporting people of the 1970’s and 80’s, those who took part in violent anti freedom thuggish picketing in the 1970’s, Grunwick for example are now in the government of our country.
Still with Labour increasing the amount of CCTV’s on our streets, the anti freedom, pro snooping legislation they keep bringing in I think they are still there in Nu Labour, their views intact and doing our country immense damage. The only thing they are doing is hiding their true values that they know ordinary people dislike so much. If Labour Party MP’s did express their real, hidden and suppressed communist and Trotskyite views and opinions they would not last long.

An interesting article about the penetration of the 1970s Labour movement by pro-Soviet trade unionists recently appeared in The Spectator.

Written by Douglas Eden and titled “We came close to losing our democracy in 1979”, it neatly summarises what he describes as “the Left’s project, led from the trade unions, to transfigure parliamentary democracy into a form of soviet state.”

I happened to notice the newspaper version of this article in the pub last night. Why was much more made of querying Ainsworths support for the IRA and using a BNP meeting analogy in the newspaper than in the online version?

Without wishing to get into a debate about support for the IRA, what the British Army got up to in Northern Ireland seems to be much more disgraceful for a standing army of a "democratic" country.

While I don't necessarily agree with "Victory to the IRA" perhaps I could stomach "Victory to Bernadette Devlin". She was a self-described Socialist and an MP who, on being told by the Home Secretary Reginald Maudling in 1972, that "the British Army had fired only in self-defence" promptly punched him in the face!

I enjoyed the line about "new Labour" being seen as right-wing "because it no longer wishes to nationalize the railways". But the truth is that much of the Labour party, new or otherwise, does want to nationalize the railways, and openly rejoiced when the East Coast mainline was recently brought back under public ownership.

Sorry to disappoint Mr.Hitchens, but the event he is talking about when I made my 'confession' about my 'revolutionary' past was organised by the Index on Censorship and I agreed with them beforehand that the entire speech would be not only taped, but subsequently published in their Journal. So the notion that I did not intend or expect this disclosure to become public knowledge and it only did so because of his attendance at the same event is simply wrong and wholly inaccurate.

First of all, a welcome back to Kevin Boatang. Is this just a passing visit or more permanent?
Nice to see some positive action being taken by yourself and Mr Demetriou...

Norfolk Al and Mike Barnes

I must admit, I think Norfolk Al made a good point: change the names around and there's not much difference, although I also think Mr Barnes is right when he points out that the BNP/nazi comparison is done all too often. It does become tiresome reading about the BNP boogeyman when (to my mind) the far greater authoritarian menace is already in power (and they're just as racist, except in a different way).

I must admit, I watched Nick Griffin on the Andrew Marr show the other week and found myself agreeing with what he said, and he sounded fairly reasonable (unless he came out with a horrible comment that I didn't hear while I was concentrating on my bran flakes). I thought he fared well against the usual accusations of racism etc, although to be fair, I was pleased to see Andrew Marr at least let him have his say without trying to show off anti-racist credentials, which is what most other presenters would have done.

While I'm here and on the subject of parties like the BNP, UKIP, Boatang and Demetriou and English Democrats etc (I'm sure some people are going to be unhappy that I've lumped them all together in the same boat) does anyone know anything about the English Democrats?

Are they a new up-and-coming party or are they to be dismissed like UKIP, regarded as 'nazi' like the BNP or are they the Real Deal?

I only ask because no-one ever seems to mention them and unlike UKIP and the BNP they tend not to be too vocal on here. Maybe I should join them just so I can claim to follow a political cause...

As for 'pro-IRA' ranting, I have already disowned those comments. If Ainsworth was a Trotskyist at some point, so be it. I shall not hold it against him. People grow older and become more moderate, as I suspect Bob has. Mr Hitchens was himself once a Trot, I do not hold it against him either. We must remember that Trotsky himself was an enemy of the despot Stalin and had he succeeded Lenin, Russia may have been a much better place to live.

I myself am not a communist. I believe in socialist principles and feel, unlike Mr Hitchens, that New Labour is not a socialist party in the old Labour sense of 'common ownership'. However, it is a rather nasty authoritarian party with communist tendencies. They want to nationalize the British conscience and tell us what we ought to think and what we can and cannot say. They limit our right to protest and brutally suppress those who do and imprison people for unreasonable lengths of time without reasons being given.

"Mike" asks ( 10.58 pm 19th July) :"Er, isn't it a well-known fact that you were a Trotskyite in your youth, Peter?".

In case nobody else makes this point quickly, I shall respond. Well yes "Mike", it is "well-known". And that is precisely the point of difference between me and the politicians who try to keep their political pasts a secret.

It is "well-known" because I have for many years made sure that it is "well-known". I have many times spoken about it. I readily answer questions about it, I have not been coy about details, dates or the extent of my involvement. On the contrary, I ensure that it is on the public record by (for instance) mentioning in my "Who's Who" entry that I worked for the newspaper 'Socialist Worker', then the weekly publication of the International Socialists. The involvement of many rather senior Labour figures in Marxist revolutionary organisations, by contrast, has generally been revealed against their wishes or without their co-operation (I except Mr McNulty, but I still think he thought he was among friends). Anthony Blair even tried to pretend that he had never been a supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and ignorant journalists have accepted the absurd claim that the Labour Co-ordinating Committee (of which Mr Blair was also a supporter) was a 'moderate' formation. Ha ha.

Nor have I ever heard any of them express regrets about it, or examine ( as I have often done) the effects that these past opinions have on their views today.

It is perfectly clear that, whatever I am, I am not a revolutionary Marxist, though some Tories have attempted to suggest this is so, because I attack their hero David Cameron. Truth is, Mr Cameron's positions, especially on cultural, social and sexual matters, are much closer to those of the 1970s International Socialists than are mine. But Mr Cameron, who I suspect has no strong convictions of any kind, has merely adopted the spirit of the age provided for him by broadcasters and teachers, and does not even know where his ideas come from.

My belief is that Labour's sixties revolutionaries remain, by temperament and conviction, left-wing revolutionary radicals, who have realised that the parliamentary road is actually more use to their cause than they believed back in the 1960s or 1970s.

They have many allies. Large numbers of teachers hold similar views, especially secondary and college teachers, who moved from campus to classroom in the early 1970s without ever stepping into the outside world. The trades union movement is even more crammed with such people, as is the legal profession and the civil service. There are increasing numbers of them in the police. Though my guess is that they are most heavily concentrated in the BBC and in the liberal newspapers, and hardest to find in the Armed Forces.

Oh, and, though the IMG merely shouted 'Victory to the IRA' in the 1960s, it was the Blair government that actually gave 'Victory to the IRA' in the Belfast capitulation of March 1998. Pure coincidence, of course.

"Er, isn't it a well-known fact that you were a Trotskyite in your youth, Peter?" poses "Mike".
Yes, it is indeed a well-known fact, and Mr Hitchens' intellectual journey from the views of his youth to his present position is clearly and fascinatingly explored in "The Broken Compass".
The point is, some current politicians are far less candid about their past and the reasons for their "transformation". One might have more respect for them if they showed similar honesty.

So norfolk al falls into that so simple trap that the BNP are the reincarnation of Hitler and his ways.
So follow that to its illogical conclusions Gas Chambers all over the land. They never say that of course except on the lunatic fringe, because they know its rubbish.
Al; from Norfolk is like all the others name calling. No intelligent debate. Well people are seeing through that silly antic and realising that some Party must address the real life situations that do affect most of Britain including Norfolk.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.